ii

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes 

no liability for the use of the information in this document.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or 

manufacturers’ names may appear in this report only because they are considered 

essential to the objective of this document.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) strives to provide high-quality information 

to serve Government, industry and the public in a manner that promotes public 

understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, 

objectivity utility and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality 

issues and adjusts its programs and processes to insure continuous quality 

improvement. 
Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

FHWA-HIF-14-008 

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date 

Culvert and Storm Dra in Management Case Study April I I, 2014 

Vermont, Oregon, Ohio, and Los Angeles County 6. Performing Organization Code 

043881093 

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. 

Marie Venner, Venner Consulting 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 

412 Mount Kemble Ave PO Box 1946 11 . Contract or Grant No. Morristown, NJ 07962-1946 DTFH6 1-II-D-00032-T12 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Case Study Report 

Federal Highway Administration October 2012-July 20 13 

Office of Asset Management, Pavements, a nd Construction 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, DC 20590 HIAP-40 

15. Supplementary Notes 

Project interviews were perfo rmed with the cooperation of the Vermont Agency of Transportation, O hio Department of 

Transportation, Oregon Department of Transportation and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. 

Project Title: Culvert and Storm Drain Management Case Study. 

16. Abstract 

Transportation agencies a re responsible for the operation and maintenance of hyd raulic control structures including culverts, drop 

systems, and storm drains. It is difficult for transportation agencies to develop accurate and effective performance measures, budgets, 

and maintena nce plans for culverts because there is a lack of information on the condition and even the location of many of the 

structures they manage. In this 2013 set of interviews and case studies, three States (Ohio, Oregon, a nd Vermont) and one county (Los 

Angeles) describe how the agencies are tackling these challenges and increasing the resilience of their culvert systems. Through the 

development of effective culvert management systems and policies, they a re developing operational protocols a nd establishing capital 

improvement budgets that add ress risks associated with hydraulic control structure failures. Generally, the culvert management 

systems they have developed are available for other public agencies to use and adapt. The culvert ma nagement case studies herein 

illustrate a path for other departments of transportation and transportation agencies to manage assets more efficiently, reduce risk, 

and improve public safety. 

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement 

Depa rtment of Transportation, DOT, county, drainage, asset, 'o restrictions 

infrastructure, culvert, management, database 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21 . No. of Pages 22. Price 

Unclassified Unclassified 48 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized 
iv
ABSTRACT

Transportation agencies are responsible for the operation and maintenance of hydraulic 

control structures including culverts, drop systems, and storm drains. It is difficult for 

transportation agencies to develop accurate and effective performance measures, budgets, 

and maintenance plans for culverts because there is a lack of information on the condition 

and even the location of many of the structures they manage. In this 2013 set of 

interviews and case studies by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), three states 

(Ohio, Oregon, and Vermont) and one county (Los Angeles) describe how transportation 

agencies are tackling these challenges and increasing the resilience of their culvert 

systems. Through the development of effective culvert management systems and policies, 

they are developing operational protocols and establishing capital improvement budgets 

that address risks associated with hydraulic control structure failures. Generally, the 

culvert management systems they have developed are available for other public agencies 

to use and adapt. The culvert management case studies herein illustrate a path for other 

departments of transportation and transportation agencies to manage assets more 

efficiently, reduce risk, and improve public safety. 
vi

Table of Contents 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1 

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Culvert Management ......................................4

Ohio Department of Transportation Culvert Management Case Study .........................................13 

Oregon Department of Transportation Culvert Management Case Study .....................................20 

Vermont Agency of Transportation Culvert Management ............................................................27

Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................36

Interview Participants ....................................................................................................................40 
vii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Los Angeles County Road Maintenance Districts & Supervisorial District Boundary 

Map can be scaled down to look at culverts... .................................................................................7 

Figure 2: Zoom-in View of Culvert Inlets and Outlets – Los Angeles County ...............................8 

Figure 3: Aerial - Further Zoom-In of Los Angeles County Culvert Inlets and Outlets .................9 

Figure 4: Culvert Collapse on I-480 in Cleveland in 2001 ............................................................13 

Figure 5: Ohio DOT Culvert Management System Inspection Results. ........................................15 

Figure 6: District 6 Culverts (blue dots) with FY 2013 Ellis Layer representing Mill and Fill 

Project (red line) ............................................................................................................................17 

Figure 7: Field Examples of Culvert Conditions from Oregon DOT’s Culvert Assessment Guide.

........................................................................................................................................................22 

Figure 8: VTrans Culvert Condition by Material (VTrans 2010 Condition Report, p. 21). ..........29 

Figure 9: Culvert washed out by Hurricane Irene. (VTrans photo). ..............................................32 

Figure 10: Hydraulically, geomorphically, and ecologically compatible structure that withstood 

Hurricane Irene and other flood events. (Readsboro VT 8 Bridge, VTrans photo) ......................33 

List of Tables

Table 1: Ohio DOT Culvert Sizes and Risk-Based Inspection Frequencies .....................................17 

Table 2: General Benefits and Costs for Three Levels of Culvert Inventory at Oregon DOT ...........21 

1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

State departments of transportation (DOTs) usually know when a highway was built or pavement 

was last replaced, but they often have considerably less information about the culverts beneath 

transportation infrastructure. DOTs have sophisticated, dedicated management systems to help 

prioritize and maximize investments in bridges and pavements. In contrast, culvert locations are 

not always marked or even known, making them more difficult to manage. State DOTs 

commonly rely on maintenance staff to observe and report culvert problems before they become 

urgent, especially if they lack more formal management systems; for example, maintenance 

forces watch for small dips in the pavement as they drive. When transportation agencies know 

culvert locations and conditions and can identify and execute repairs before too much damage 

has occurred, they can greatly extend culvert lifespans. This report shares information from three 

state DOTs and one county about how DOTs are inventorying culverts and managing their data 

to extend culvert life and reduce costs and risk. 

Section 1203 of the transportation reauthorization act, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st

Century (MAP-21), encourages state DOTs to extend their asset management efforts beyond 

pavement and bridges to ancillary structures in the right-of-way through the use of risk-based 

asset management plans. DOTs are interested in culvert rehabilitation strategies that maximize 

system performance and reduce risk, whether from eroding conditions or increasing 

precipitation. 

This round of case studies on culvert management at the Ohio DOT, Oregon DOT, Vermont 

Agency of Transportation (VTrans), and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works 

(LA County DPW) extends the series that FHWA started with Alabama DOT, Maryland State 

Highway Administration (SHA), Minnesota DOT, and Shelby County, Alabama, in 2007. State 

and county transportation managers tell how they have elevated the priority of culvert 

management at their agencies and extended culvert maintenance and management systems. Their 

stories chart a path for other transportation agencies to reduce risk, preserve assets, and improve 

public safety. The planning sections of these case studies note whether states are seeing impacts 

to their infrastructure from changing precipitation and climate and what, if any, action they plan 

to take for the future. 

Findings

The number of culverts managed by the agencies interviewed ranged widely from fewer than

10,000 in LA County to close to 100,000 in Ohio. DOTs frequently divided management of 

small culverts from larger ones already tracked by Bridge Sections. All of the transportation 

agencies interviewed already used or were switching to electronic tracking mechanisms and 

databases, though the agencies were reluctant to characterize these as decision support systems. 

While deterioration analyses for culverts remain a future goal in all of the systems reviewed, 

agencies interviewed were finding ways to connect their maintenance and asset management data 

for culverts. VTrans was connecting culvert management systems with its maintenance 

management system (MMS) and then linking them with pavement and bridge management 

systems for infrastructure prioritization. Ohio DOT had begun to develop deterioration models 
2 

and was also looking at how to link data from its Structure Management System (SMS) to 

maintenance and its Equipment, Inventory, and Materials System (EIMS). The LA County DPW 

already had data on maintenance of each culvert in the agency’s MMS and figured that project 

costs for specific replacement projects or culvert linings could be captured, along with work 

orders, for better linkage of system value, life cycle costs of culverts, and the cost-effectiveness 

and benefits of preventive action. 

Both Ohio DOT and LA DPW have fully populated culvert inventories and a degree of annual 

inspection for risk minimization. LA County had already concluded that annual inspection and 

simultaneous annual maintenance of all culverts is well worth the effort in terms of both asset 

preservation and risk reduction. Ohio DOT found that the best preservation maintenance and risk 

management activity is field inspection, required annually of all at-risk culverts; Ohio DOT said

that routine field inspection catches a majority of problems before they become emergencies.

Multiple state DOTs said culvert maps and location knowledge alone improved culvert 

maintenance. The efforts to map culverts increased general maintenance staff knowledge of their 

locations and conditions. As a result, maintenance staff members are more inclined to realize, 

check, and address threats earlier, prolonging culvert service life. Generally, all states with 

culvert management programs are trying to stay ahead of resurfacing projects to prevent open cut 

of new pavement after resurfacing and to leverage larger capital projects whenever possible.

Some states invested more in culvert inventory training than others. The longest trainings took 

two weeks and included safety training and more testing to ensure that raters were scoring 

culvert conditions the same way. Ohio DOT emphasized completion of a statewide inventory of 

all culverts in a couple of years and conducted the shortest training for locaters and condition 

raters, noting that risks of unreliability would be reduced along with failure risks as lower 

scoring (at-risk) culverts were reviewed annually. Districts had the incentive to keep culverts at

higher condition levels in order to avoid the annual monitoring that would otherwise be required. 

Best Practices and Recommendations 

The following potential best practices for launching and institutionalizing a culvert inventory and 

cost-effective culvert management system were uncovered through this research:

• High-level management awareness of culvert risks can help get statewide programs off 

the ground and gain the attention of regional or district leadership. DOTs that launched 

programs successfully leveraged opportunities including disasters.

• Financial incentives for complete culvert inventories. Ohio DOT pooled all spending 

on culverts across its bridge, pavement, and maintenance budgets. Starting in fiscal year

(FY) 2015, Ohio DOT will allocate those funds to districts according to the culverts in 

the statewide inventory, which will provide all districts with a solid incentive to complete 

their inventories. 

• To reduce risk, the number of levels in the system, the amount of training, or 

accuracy of the technology may not matter as much as just getting a system in place. 

Start a culvert management system and the data will improve with time. The DOTs 
3 

interviewed were using systems with as few as three categories or levels of culvert 

condition (or deterioration) and as many as nine, in line with the National Bridge 

Inventory. Once culverts are located and in a system, with condition assessed in some 

capacity, the agency is better situated to reduce risk, manage culvert life cycles, and 

leverage other capital investments in the area such as pavement overlays. 

• Reduce data collection to what will be used. Internal groups and stakeholders can 

identify large lists of potential data to be collected; however, the agency should make 

sure it knows how the data will be used and how often it may be used. Oregon DOT 

evaluated whether information collection was sustainable over time. Ohio DOT produced 

a monthly culvert management overview. 

• Some states planned to train Bridge staff so they could evaluate shorter span culverts 

as well as the larger ones that already fall under their purview. VTrans planned to train 

staff on its management system for shorter culverts so the staff could help update the 

culvert system for all sizes.

• User-friendly inventory and inspection tools (tablets) help implementation. Some 

state DOTs, notably South Carolina, have elected to use iPads for affordable and easy 

data entry and basic global positioning system (GPS) location. Some interviewed states 

are considering tablets and said that inspectors enjoyed the all-in-one ease of contacting 

other staff and downloading related information. More urban or densely populated states 

often have better cellular service coverage, which enables the use of tablets to establish 

culvert locations. 

• Visualize! User friendliness extends to the data management system as well, with 

simple visualizations winning the most praise. In Ohio, use of the culvert management 

system with ArcMap and the ELLIS project management system showed the user where 

potential transportation improvements were in relation to culvert needs to leverage 

investments in each to the maximum extent possible. 

The case studies that follow examine how agencies are managing their culvert systems to derive 

maximum benefit from limited funds. 
4 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CULVERT 

MANAGEMENT

The LA County Department of Public Works (DPW) 

maintains a smaller number of culverts and storm drains 

than many state DOTs. Nevertheless, LA County DPW’s

annual inspection of all culverts, proactive maintenance, and 

integrated collection of maintenance information provides a 

model for other transportation and public works agencies. 

During the annual inspections of all culverts, LA County 

DPW maintenance staff clean and make minor repairs as 

necessary. As part of the inspection, staff also photo 

document the cleaned condition of each culvert entrance. 

GPS equipment on the cameras stores location information. 

LA County DPW has accomplished this notable level of 

accountability and proactive prevention of culvert failures 

with a relatively “low tech” approach. As of 2013, staff 

members documented the condition of inlets, outlets, pipes, 

and any associated structures on paper and with electronic 

photos instead of collecting field data electronically. The

county anticipates utilizing more mobile electronic devices 

for data collection in the future. 

The LA County DPW Road Maintenance Division and the 

Design Division Bridge Preventative Maintenance Program 

are responsible for culvert management under the unified 

direction of the county’s deputy director of public works. 

LA County’s Culvert and Storm Drain Management System (CMS) is managed from a central 

office and from the county’s four road maintenance district offices. Other storm drains within the 

county’s unincorporated areas are maintained by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. 

Since maintenance staff members are so involved in condition documentation and management, 

LA County’s deputy director of public works considers all county road maintenance staff to be 

part of the culvert management system. LA County’s 5,072 culverts require the attention of 40 

maintenance staff members. This includes about 15 percent of the time of 4 engineers and 20 

percent of the time of five bridge inspectors. Culvert management is fully integrated with 

maintenance management and is part of a unified asset management system. 

Inventory and Inspection

LA County DPW’s annual inspection of all culverts (85 percent of which are steel) is a visual 

inspection. If the length of the pipe cannot be seen from either end, inspectors shine a light 

through it to determine whether there is any obstruction. If damage or obstruction is suspected, 

staff run water through the pipe to test for obstruction or use a closed circuit television camera to 

assess the condition of the pipe. Maintenance staff members give culverts and storm drains 

LA County’s Deputy 

Director of Public Works 

thinks the maintenance 

staff’s “annual inspection 

and cleaning has probably 

been the most beneficial 

practice for our culverts.” 

The inspections and 

annual maintenance have 

helped prevent failures 

and reduced the county’s 

liability, especially 

considering that loss of 

single access in 

mountainous areas can 

expose residents to 

particular risk during the 

fire season. 
5 

descriptive condition ratings such as “good,” “in need of repair,” “blocked,” “eroded,” or 

“collapsed.” As the culvert system ages, LA County DPW management would like to videotape 

the system routinely to better assess its condition. This work would likely occur on a contract

basis. Once all of the culverts are mapped in geographic information systems (GIS), the 

department plans to geographically divide the culverts into 10 areas and have the culverts in one 

area per year videotaped.

LA County DPW maintenance staff schedule inspections between storm seasons. Natural 

disasters and other maintenance work sometimes impact the scheduling of culvert inspection and 

repair work since maintenance responsibilities extend to all facilities, not just culverts. 

LA County DPW did not have a written culvert management procedure, but it did conduct both 

formal staff training and on-the-job orientation. Larger bridge culverts were inspected per the 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) 2008 First 

Edition of the Bridge Manual for Condition Evaluation, related FHWA reports, and the Caltrans 

Element Level Inspection Manual. Bridge culvert condition states are updated in Pontis Bridge 

Software, including sufficiency rating, culvert rating, and other NBIS ratings. 

County DPW staff members were trained to use the county’s Maximo asset management 

database. Bridge inspectors also took the National Highway Institute’s two-week Safety 

Inspection of In-Service Bridges course among others. Bridge inspectors attended the Caltrans 

Area Bridge Maintenance Engineers monthly meeting and received continuing education there as 

well, some pertaining to bridge-size culverts. In general, county road maintenance personnel 

were not trained in confined space entry, but if necessary, they could request assistance from 

other DPW personnel who were trained.

Database and Management Systems

The DPW inventories and tracks maintenance on all structures (including culverts and storm 

drains) using its MMS. All of the county’s non-bridge culverts and other assets are tracked and 

managed in Maximo, a system the county has used for asset management for more than16 years. 

The DPW has kept data on bridge culverts in Pontis Bridge Software for consistency with 

Caltrans and FHWA. Upcoming versions of Pontis are expected to be able to predict future 

deterioration of bridge culverts. To date, LA County DPW has lacked deterioration projections 

for culverts, so this type of decision support has not been available. To conduct project and 

maintenance planning, LA County DPW uses both ArcGIS and Maximo. 

LA County DPW’s Maximo system did not store hydraulic design or watershed information, but, 

unique among FHWA’s 2013 case studies, it had been tracking maintenance work history and 

describing repair or replacement strategy and improvement projects. The department said that it 

was not used as a decision support system for projecting future conditions or for funds allocation, 

but data within the system were used by staff in their discussions on asset needs. Since Maximo 

was used for all of the department’s assets, the department did not feel able to move to another 

system with more extensive deterioration or remaining service life models that could proactively 

explore different maintenance strategies. 
6 

LA County DPW is in the process of developing a GIS map of all its drains and culverts. That 

data will be incorporated into an integrated multi-agency GIS-based storm drain network map to

provide information about all Flood Control District drains in LA County. Previously, LA

County used Google Earth to update GPS coordinates for bridge culverts. A series of “zoom-in” 

views are shown on the next pages.

LA County DPW also has a financial management system that tracks expenditures on culvert 

management. The department’s financial management system links to its MMS with routine 

updates of labor and material costs. Financial information is updated at the program level 

(inspection and cleaning for all culverts). In the future, LA County DPW thinks that costs for 

specific replacement projects or culvert linings could be captured, along with work orders, for 

better linkage of life cycle costs, action benefits and cost-effectiveness, and system value.

For LA County, the main point is that critical maintenance and culvert cleaning are being 

completed on an annual basis and that all culverts are inspected annually. This high-level 

accomplishment, with inspection and maintenance performed in one trip, serves the county’s 

purposes and budget capacity. 
7 

Figure 1: Los Angeles County Road Maintenance Districts & Supervisorial District 

Boundary Map can be scaled down to look at culverts.
8 

Figure 2: Zoom-in View of Culvert Inlets and Outlets – Los Angeles County.
9 

Figure 3: Aerial - Further Zoom-In of Los Angeles County Culvert Inlets and Outlets.
10 

Prioritization and Risk Assessment

The LA County DPW Design Division and Road Maintenance Districts collaborate to identify 

the best preservation, maintenance, and rehabilitation solutions. Maintenance districts perform 

the initial prioritization of culvert improvements based on risk minimization, placing higher 

priority on those culverts located on routes with no alternative route if the culvert failed and the 

road became impassible. Districts use Excel, Maximo, and Pontis Bridge Software to help 

prioritize culvert remediation actions that should be taken next to minimize risk or maximize 

future protection. 

To enhance network level and programmatic analysis, LA County DPW is working toward better 

identifying and prioritizing its deficiencies through GIS mapping and routine condition 

assessment of all culverts. The county’s combined multi-agency GIS-based storm drain network 

map will help the agencies identify weak links in the network, whether inside or outside of the 

systems each agency manages. As previously described, the county has primarily minimized risk 

by inspecting and cleaning its culverts annually and making subsequent minor repairs. This 

process has reduced the need for emergency repairs or prioritizations of maintenance activities. It 

also has extended culvert life cycle and culverts to be replaced within the county’s allocated 

budget. 

If, in the course of their annual inspection, field staff discover a culvert or drain is damaged, then 

county maintenance staff make repairs or replace the drain or culvert depending on the condition, 

with assistance from the Design Division. Field staff members handle routine maintenance. 

Maintenance district engineering makes repair or replacement recommendations, and the deputy 

director decides whether to proceed with repair or replacement projects beyond routine 

maintenance. Managers receive annual inspection reports for culverts and biennial inspection 

reports for bridge culverts. Each maintenance district develops its own informal plan for 

improvement. 

The drivers for culvert improvements are diverse. Outside of transportation/capacity and renewal 

projects, condition assessment, and in some instances natural disasters like fires, major storms, or 

landslides, drive culvert improvement actions and upgrades. As road construction projects are

programmed or developed, planning and design staff members solicit input from maintenance 

districts regarding which culverts need to be repaired/replaced and could be incorporated into 

road and bridge improvement projects. The county reported that culvert improvements were 

sometimes delayed because of regulatory permit and right-of-way issues.

Planning and Funding

Life cycle costs are of high concern to senior management at LA County and to designers who 

are managed under the same deputy director of public works as maintenance forces. County 

management reports to the Commission and provides agency accountability if and when culvert 

washouts occur. To manage life cycle costs at the project scoping level, the county compares the 

cost of a culvert replacement/improvement project and its resultant reduced maintenance cost 

with minor concrete repair and ongoing additional maintenance costs. The county also weighs 

the cost to manage risk and the community benefit in both scenarios. These factors are 
11 

considered at the conceptual level; detailed analyses of actual costs other than the construction 

cost are not prepared. 

On average, LA County DPW’s budget for culvert and storm drain maintenance is $5 million 

annually, of which 65 percent is spent on preservation (inspection and cleaning); 15 percent on 

maintenance (repair); 10 percent on rehabilitation (lining and reconstruction); and 10 percent on 

complete removal and replacement of the existing culvert or drain. Drain lining and major drain 

replacement are generally performed under contract by third parties. 

If a deficiency is discovered during the course of an annual culvert inspection and a maintenance 

crew cannot make a minor repair to address the issue at the time, the county generally proposes 

and completes a culvert lining or replacement project within a year. This approach has enabled 

the county to avoid a repair backlog on its small culverts. Meanwhile, the county recommends 

remedial repairs for approximately 30 percent of bridge culverts yearly. 

Unlike some other areas of the country, Los Angeles has not had to cope with increasing storm 

flows. With respect to extreme weather or climate change vulnerability and risk assessment, LA

County has tracked projected rainfall across the county based on climate change and hydraulic 

capacity analysis from new data; however, rainfall amounts do not appear to be increasing 

overall, and the county has not been experiencing culvert failures when major storms come 

through, except when other infrastructure and property damage occurs. 

LA County has not undertaken an assessment of climate change vulnerability and risk; nor is the 

county measuring or comparing performance of its culverts in record storm events. With no 

forecast increase in rainfall, LA County is planning no adjustments to hydraulic design criteria or 

plans, programs, or standards. The DPW collects rainfall data, and road maintenance personnel 

conduct drive-by inspections of culverts and drains during and after significant storms. 

Summary

LA County’s culvert management program is unique not only in its annual inspection of all 

culverts in the county system, but also in the agency’s annual maintenance of all culverts in the 

system. While annual drain cleaning and inspection is resource intensive and state DOTs have 

decided they cannot afford this level of maintenance, LA County thinks the benefit gained has 

been well worth it. The DPW is reducing washout risks and extending culvert lifespans, and the 

county has no backlog of small culvert repairs. 

Best Practices 

• Culvert and maintenance management integrated in a unified asset management system. 

• Annual inspection of all culverts and photo documentation of cleaned culverts and culvert 

condition. Inspection and maintenance occurs and minimizes backlog. 

• Use of GPS equipment on digital cameras to capture culvert location. 

• Conducting inspections before the storm season or between storm seasons to prevent 

culvert failures during the storm season. 
12 

• Ability of maintenance and asset management system to track maintenance activities, 

store facility inventory information, analyze staffing needs, and provide cost analysis. 

• Financial management system linked with the MMS to track expenditures on culvert 

management and information updated at the program level. 

• Use of Excel, Maximo, and Pontis Bridge Software to help prioritize culvert remediation 

actions that should be taken next to minimize risk or maximize future protection. Use of 

GIS to identify and prioritize deficiencies and identify weak links in the network. 

• Prioritization for culverts located on routes with no alternative route if the culvert failed 

and the road became impassible. 

• Planning for culvert repair/replacement occurs when road construction and improvement 

projects are programmed or developed. 

• Conceptual comparison of costs at the project scoping level. 
13 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORATION CULVERT MANAGEMENT 

CASE STUDY

Ohio DOT developed the concept for a Statewide Culvert Management System for conduits with 

spans less than 10 feet after a collapse in Cleveland on Interstate I-480 in 2001.(See Figure 4, 

below). A district staff member noticed a small dip in the pavement, which turned out to be an 

indication of a large void resulting from a culvert collapse beneath the interstate. Only the 

concrete pavement above the void supported the traveling public. The emergency repair closed 

lanes on the interstate, which caused traffic delays and made the evening news. Ohio DOT used 

the close call and negative publicity to launch an effort to create a Statewide Culvert 

Management Program. 

Initially, Ohio DOT headquarters created an optional rating system and database that districts 

could use. This effort spurred little action, but in 2011, the new chief engineer created an Office 

of Hydraulic Engineering (OHE). According to the OHE staff members, the chief engineer was 

one of the best advocates of the culvert program because of his background in hydraulics and his 

understanding of the risks culvert failures can present. The OHE was responsible for 

administering and implementing the statewide culvert program and database from a technical 

program perspective, while the DOT districts were responsible for collecting field data. As of 

July 2013, Ohio DOT had a nearly complete inventory of the state’s culverts and a sizeable 

percentage of the state’s larger storm drains. More than 79,000 features that were less than 10 

feet in diameter were in the inventory, the results of which are shown in Figure 5. 

Ohio DOT established an incentive for all ODOT districts to complete inventories of their 

culverts by creating dedicated funding to repair or replace deficient culverts, starting in FY 2015. 

Ohio DOT will fund each district based on the conditional needs of culverts and storm sewers 

within their districts, thus helping incentivize district attention to culverts, data collection, and 

management. 

Figure 4: Culvert Collapse on I-480 in 

Cleveland in 2001.

(Ohio DOT)
14 

 

Inventory and Inspection

Ohio DOT district employees collect culvert inventory and inspection data with handheldTrimble GeoExplorers Ohio DOT’s mobile software syncs existing data from a central 

database to the mobile device, which can then be modified in the field and re-synced to the 

database upon return to the office. The custom software presents separate inventory and 

inspection screens that match the methodology outlined in the state’s Culvert Management 

Manual. Drop-down boxes facilitate easy data entry. 

Ohio DOT opted to continue and adapt the 0-9 rating system from the NBIS so it could more 

easily be used in conjunction with the 9-level mandatory inspection that occurs for bridges and 

culverts with spans greater than 10 feet. In Ohio DOT’s 9-level system, a culvert condition rating 

of four or less indicates that maintenance or replacement (and annual tracking until this occurred) 

is required. 

Ohio DOT’s OHE staff members have been rigorous about regulating the culvert inventory 

information to be collected. OHE urged staff to get the most needed information, “the 5,000-foot 

level,” and assume that the data they could collect would improve over time. 

ODOT does not currently have the ability to store pictures in the database, but some districts take 

photographs and they have their own storage methods. This deficiency will be addressed with a 

new database and Culvert Management System that will begin development in summer of 2014. 

A new mobile device, the Juniper Systems, Archer 2 units will be utilized to collect inventory 

and/or inspection data in the field with both the current mobile software and the upcoming 

Culvert Management System. The device will be able to take pictures for direct placement 

within the new Culvert Management System. 

Figure 5: Ohio DOT Culvert Management System Inspection Results –

location points are color-coded to represent the General Appraisal Rating. 

Black indicates that no inspection was performed.
15 

As of July 2013, Ohio had more than 79,000 hydraulic 

features in its inventory of culverts and storm sewers (spans 

between 12 inches and less than 10 feet). The diverse culvert 

system includes 44 percent concrete, 26 percent metal, 12

percent plastic, 10 percent clay, and 6 percent cast iron

pipes, in addition to smaller percentages of brick, stone, 

timber, and other materials. More than 85 percent of Ohio 

DOT’s culverts were under less than 8 feet of cover, though 

some culverts lie beneath 100 feet or more of fill. Around 

one-third of the culvert inventory has been inspected and 

rated in the last four years. 

Ohio DOT’s inspection training is shorter than in other 

states. Ohio DOT’s culvert management engineer in the 

OHE offers a one-day training class of six hours. The class

reviews the inventory process and spends most of the time 

reviewing how to perform an inspection. Instructors discuss the 0-9 rating scale and focus on 

applications in concrete and metal. The OHE also offers field data collection software training to 

districts as requested. The training follows the manual, which has been updated biennially. 

OHE started spot-checking for inter-rater reliability/duplicability in 2013. In the same year, Ohio 

DOT began performing quality assurance inspections for all districts by checking the inspections 

and ratings of five randomly selected culverts in 50 percent of the districts. This cycle will be 

ongoing, with the completion of the first cycle in two years unless a change in the frequency is 

later warranted. The OHE noted that ratings by the most experienced staff tended to be the same, 

and agency policy was for raters to provide ratings within one level of each other.

Ohio DOT’s culvert management program depends on the leadership of a single full-time

engineer within the Hydraulics Section of the OHE, who ensures the statewide culvert 

management system is operational and provides training and technical assistance to districts and 

consultants. Ohio DOT has conducted some cross-training within OHE and the districts to extend 

staff coverage; OHE management is also actively involved in the program to provide some 

program security in case of staff succession. Consultants supplement internal staff inventory 

efforts. Since districts were responsible for completing the inventory of all of their culverts in the 

2012-2013 year, several made use of consultants that were hired via a central office task order.

Database and Management Systems 

Ohio DOT’s culvert database allows linking and display of culvert data in conjunction with other 

data sources within the department. Ohio DOT’s database containing project information 

(ELLIS) can be mapped and overlaid onto ArcMap, a geographic information system that 

contains a layer with culvert information. The culvert database is designed to store watershed 

and hydraulic design information as well as condition assessments of culverts and storm drains. 

Ohio DOT did not have the ability to store pictures in the culvert management database at the 

time of the interviews, but some districts took photographs and stored them according to their 

own methods. As of 2014, Ohio DOT is consulting with AgileAssets to develop a new Culvert 

Management Program for Ohio DOT. This new system will store pictures, videos, or any other 

“The best preservation 

maintenance activity and 

risk management activity 

is field inspection. Routine 

field inspection will catch 

a majority of the problems 

before they become 

emergencies.”

Jeff Syar, P.E., Ohio DOT 

Hydraulics Manager 
16 

document. Photos will include upstream and downstream images, which will assist 

environmental assessments into the future. Other raster images such as plan sheets, sketches, or 

notes will be able to be associated with each culvert within the new Culvert Management System 

as well. Features, such as documentation of maintenance activities and new data fields for repair 

or replacement strategy, will be included. Counties and other local jurisdictions will have access 

to the Culvert Management Program when it comes online. 

Ohio DOT OHE staff and management were in the position of having “everything they want in 

their system. It’s a matter of being able to filter and present it.” OHE continues to add 

functionality, such as identifying the percentage of culverts being lined instead of replaced. 

Though Ohio DOT does not track specific maintenance activities, if culvert modifications such 

as relining or field paving are performed, Ohio DOT adds the year modified and the material 

used. Ohio DOT is close to being able to estimate the costs and benefits of a culvert management 

system to show the returns on man hours spent inspecting, and the DOT recognizes the benefit of 

preventing or avoiding an emergency project. As Ohio DOT staff said, “A good system enables 

repair and rehabilitation instead of replacement.” 

Prioritization and Risk Management 

OHE believes that field inspection is the best preservation maintenance and risk management 

activity. “Routine field inspection will catch a majority of the problems before they become 

emergency problems. Emergency problems are more costly and they can be minimized through 

routine field inspection,” said an Ohio DOT OHE staff member. 

Prioritization started in the initial inventory; most districts started with the interstates and worked 

their way down the list of priorities or risks as they understood them. Many of the districts 

organized their inventories to try to stay ahead of the resurfacing projects, to prevent open cut of 

new pavement after resurfacing or to ensure culverts requiring attention were addressed in 

upcoming projects. 

Ohio DOT also utilizes a risk-based assessment cycle to help prioritize among its culverts and 

drains spanning less than 10 feet. Ohio DOT’s data collection effort includes small storm sewers, 

but culverts are a higher priority due to their constant stream flow and abrasive conditions, which 

make scour a concern. Ohio DOT inspects culverts with spans from 12 inches to less than 120 

inches and storm drain systems with spans from 36 inches to less than 120 inches. Storm sewer 

with spans from 12 inches to less than 36 inches may be collected at the discretion of the district

Office. Conduits with general assessment ratings of four or less require annual inspection. The 

frequency of conduits above the general assessment rating of four is shown in Table 1. 
17 

Table 1: Ohio DOT Culvert Sizes and Risk-Based Inspection Frequencies

Culvert Size Cycle/Inspection Frequency

1 to 4 feet Every 10 years or prior to routine roadway maintenance activities, such 

as resurfacing, whichever is less. These spans pose less of a threat to the 

traveling public if they deteriorate.

4 to less than 10 

feet

Inspect all culverts with a span greater than 48 inches but less than 120 

inches every 5 years.

Risk-based review is also built into follow-up requirements. In addition to annual inspection, 

conduits with a condition rating of four or below, regardless of span size, entail review due to 

their higher risk of failure. This obligation for review and re-inspection also functions as an 

incentive for the district to address the culvert and eliminate what could otherwise be an annual 

extra job. Conduits receiving scores of three and less require immediate action. To avoid 

emergencies and annual inspection tasks, many districts track culverts rated five as well. 

Management has remained very involved in Ohio DOT’s program. The OHE made screenshots 

of the Excel sheet monthly for management review, prioritization, and decision support. Higher 

levels are also privy to the information, so all who need it can get to live data. 

With the completion of inventory and inspection and increasing system maturity, some districts 

develop management plans for culverts, an ultimate goal. Inspection ratings in combination with 

planned projects drive culvert maintenance action/improvements. The highway management 

administrator in each district uses the culvert data matrix to help allocate funds. Sometimes the 

district highway management administrator contacts the OHE for an expert opinion, but the 

Central Office has no plans for a further decision support system or matrix. 

“We want them to think about this,” said OHE. “Sometimes the districts go for the ‘Cadillac’ fix 

for the additional security. If you have culverts that are bad and culverts that are good beneath a 

road, do you take advantage of the scale and the fact that it is a paving project? Likely, yes. 

Some culverts may be rated a four for 

several years though, as long as the

district is keeping an eye on them at 

least annually. districts don’t want to 

have to look at it annually though, so 

that is another carrot.” 

District forces inspect culverts in 

advance of resurfacing projects so 

that culvert replacement needs can be 

included in project scopes of work

(as shown in Figure 5). If geometric 

issues prompt the need to buy rightof-way, the time and expense 

involved can preclude fixing the 

culvert(s) that way, since resurfacing 

projects typically do not include such 

Figure 6: District 6 Culverts (blue dots) with FY 2013 

Ellis Layer representing Mill and Fill Project (red line)
18 

additional work. Use of the culvert management system with ArcMap and the ELLIS project 

management system tells the user what projects are coming up and where and when they will be 

funded and designed. 

OHE stressed that culverts are durable and have a 50-70-year service life, and the agency is 

working at extending those all the time. With this inspection program, Ohio DOT staff said that 

if they catch a corrugated pipe culvert soon enough, they can do small paving and avoid 

replacement or lining that is more expensive. They hope to get to an economical point and do the 

cheaper maintenance earlier, to reduce costs. They are trying to catch invert deterioration earlier.

At Ohio DOT, the life cycle cost of the culvert material is not a big consideration in deciding 

how to rehabilitate or replace culverts. Conduit durability data is somewhat suspect as durability 

is “based on data collected in the ‘70s and guidance created in the ‘80s,” said OHE, and new 

research, material, and protective coatings are available now. Ohio DOT has active research that 

is re-evaluating conduit durability. Ohio DOT reported that some culverts were lasting longer

than expected when site-specific abrasiveness and pH were not issues. 

Planning and Funding 

To give more attention and incentive to culvert maintenance, Ohio DOT created a dedicated pool 

of funding beginning in FY 2014. OHE estimated that Ohio DOT districts were spending a 

combined $18 million annually on culvert rehabilitation and replacement when expenditures 

from pavement, bridge, and maintenance programs were combined. In FY 2014, Ohio DOT

distributed funds for culverts from a pool of $20 million based on the number of lane miles each 

district managed. Beginning in FY 2015, Ohio DOT distributed the culvert funding based on the 

number of culverts and condition ratings found in each district. This creates a strong incentive 

for districts to complete culvert inventories in order to get their share of the pool of funds. 

Ohio DOT rehabilitates and extends the life of culverts whenever possible. Ohio DOT internal 

maintenance forces were restricted to a maximum dollar amount of $50,000 of work per culvert 

through the Ohio Revised Code (ORC) until July of 2013 when the ORC was revised. The ORC 

now specifies a maximum cross sectional area of 52 square feet versus a dollar amount limit. 

This gives ODOT internal maintenance forces increased ability to make repairs. 

The state relies on contract maintenance task orders for invert paving and concrete re-lining, and

the DOT has found efficiencies with grouping culvert replacement and rehabilitation projects. 

MAP-21 allows spending contract work on maintenance items, and Ohio DOT’s agreement with 

FHWA lists bridge and culvert-related expenditure codes among transportation investment 

program projects in ELLIS. 

Ohio DOT attributed the culvert failures the agency had experienced to lack of maintenance in 

the past, rather than the stresses of increasing storm intensities or frequencies. Ohio DOT derived 

new intensity-duration-frequency (IDF) curves after downloading and mapping recent National 

Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 14 rainfall data in a GIS format. Ohio DOT

developed rainfall regions for the state using contours from the 10-year frequency, 60-minute 

duration precipitation data, which produced areas that roughly matched the existing regions used 

by the department. 
19 

OHE found that the intensities for the more frequent events were slightly higher and that the 

intensities for the less frequent events were slightly lower. The new IDF curves will be 

implemented in July 2014. Alterations may be made to designs using the more frequent events

(lower frequency); however, this would only pertain to smaller events and what is designed using 

the rational equation. Ohio DOT anticipates changing the design of inlets over the next year and 

adopting the Hydrologic Engineering Circular (HEC-22) Urban Drainage Manual and software 

to design inlet spacing.

Summary

Ohio DOT learned a number of lessons during the development of its culvert program. OHE 

particularly valued the attention of senior leadership and the consolidated funding for culverts, 

which incentivized completion of the state’s culvert inventory. Ohio DOT also noted that 

dedicated staff members at the Central Office and the districts were involved in promoting and 

administering the program, and districts shared specialized staff such as those with roving 

inspection cameras. Most of all, OHE valued its completed inventory and inspection program 

that operates, so that if the department catches a corrugated pipe culvert soon enough, they can 

do invert paving and avoid replacement or more expensive repair solutions. Ohio DOT said its 

existing culvert management system is helping to “get to an economical point and to do the 

cheaper maintenance earlier. This helps reduce our costs, to find them early.” 

Information regarding Ohio DOT’s Culvert Management Manual and Culvert Management 

Training is available at: www.dot.state.oh.us/ and SEARCH: “Culvert Management Training” or 

“Culvert Management Manual.” Google Keyhole Mark-up Language (KML) files, enabling 

viewing in Google Earth and Google Maps, are created for every district on a weekly basis and 

placed on an ftp site for consultants’ use for the Culvert Inventory/Inspection Task Order.

Best Practices

• Focused, one-day training on the 0-9 culvert rating system. 

• Completed inventory of culverts. Districts incentivized to complete inventory and 

provided with central task orders to tap consultants for help doing so. 

• Dedicated funding to repair or replace identified, deficient culverts starting in FY 2015. 

• Full-time hydraulics engineer devoted to the culvert management program. 

• Viewability of culvert database in relationship to DOT investment program, helping 

visualize opportunities to leverage projects, funds, and staff time. 

• Proactive inventory, inspection, and maintenance of all culverts statewide. 
20 

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CULVERT MANAGEMENT

CASE STUDY

For decades, Oregon DOT (ODOT) has been committed to extending the state’s asset 

management data system to culverts and other small assets. Oregon started collecting location 

and type information for culverts down to 36 inches in span in the mid-1980s by taking 

information from existing paper plans. The Bridge program also has a long history of gathering 

information on larger culverts, including those down to spans of 6 feet. In the last decade, ODOT 

started locating culverts 12 inches and larger in span and assessing conditions of culverts on 

state-identified priority routes under ODOT’s Geo-Environmental Section. 

ODOT’s Asset Management Steering Committee has acknowledged culverts as a priority asset 

warranting additional effort. While major culvert failures have not been a driving factor for 

instigating ODOT’s culvert management program, staff members statewide have been aware of 

the poor and critical condition of many culverts. As one staff member said, “The agency 

understands culverts are a problem, but they’ve never had a ‘school bus in a hole’ or been able to 

say exactly how big a problem it is.” 

Historically, some ODOT District Maintenance managers used varied methods for keeping 

district-specific information on culverts in each district. The state still lacked data to support 

strategic prioritization, especially on a larger scale and for larger allocations for culvert repair. 

Inventory and Inspection 

In 2002, ODOT initiated a project to develop a data management system to track, document, and 

supply information concerning stormwater facilities and culverts. Leveraging FHWA’s existing 

inspection criteria for cross-culverts, ODOT headquarters developed inspection criteria and a 

condition rating system for each type of facility. ODOT also wanted to estimate the time and 

effort required to collect and enter data on all culverts, pipes, and stormwater facilities within the 

entire ODOT system based on pilot data collection. 

In 2006, ODOT selected a pilot set of routes to inventory a suite of assets and district 

maintenance staff collected the culvert data. ODOT included this in the agency’s Asset 

Management Integration (AMI) effort. ODOT’s first pilot inventory sampled highways with a 

variety of different terrains and with enough points and information to conduct a statistically 

valid analysis. ODOT Information Technology staff then developed the Drainage Facility 

Management System with contractor assistance. With this data, ODOT examined general 

benefits and costs for three possible levels of culvert inventory as shown in Table 2. 
21

Table 2: General Benefits and Costs for Three Levels of Culvert Inventory at Oregon DOT

Benefits Definition Level 

1

Level 

2

Level 

3

Location Culvert location along the state highway system. X X X

Magnitude of 

problem

The condition of culverts along the highway system. X X X

General culvert 

condition

Good, fair, and poor rating system. X X X

Detailed condition 

rating

Detailed culvert and site condition assessment and 

ratings. X X

Project scoping & 

cost estimate

Ability to use information for project scoping and cost 

estimates. X X

Risk Severity of problem at each location. X X

Life cycle costs The overall cost of a selected repair or replacement 

alternative over the life span of the facility. X

Risk benefit 

analysis

The comparison of the risk of a situation to its related 

benefits. X

Complete photo 

record X

Estimated total cost in $ without inflation (in millions) $3.83 $4.03 $ 5.04

ODOT also considered the consequences of “moving too slowly” in inventorying culverts, 

including increased repair costs due to rising inflation and overhead and higher risk that problem 

culverts would remain undiscovered and delay funding requests and repairs. The risks of moving 

too fast were also considered, including not having business processes in place, quality control of 

field work and higher probability of re-doing work, training challenges, and taking time from 

other priority initiatives. This analysis was unique among the DOTs interviewed for this study.

In 2007, ODOT implemented the agency’s CMS Work Plan, a framework for improved 

management of state highway culverts. ODOT hired a consultant to help collect data statewide 

during the following two years on routes of greatest concern to the Maintenance and Technical 

Center. Freight routes and those supported by key bridges rounded out the list of high priorities. 

By 2010, ODOT refined its Condition Assessment Protocols after input from a variety of 

sources, including ODOT Research staff, FHWA’s CMS, Utah DOT, Caltrans, and ODOT’s 

Maintenance and Hydraulics Engineering staff. This refinement resulted in a suite of information 

that included 45 site fields, 27 condition fields, and 13 photographs per culvert. ODOT 

documented the protocol and the workflow process to improve efficiency and quality of data in a 

2010 field handbook. In 2011, ODOT’s consideration of the data collection effort evolved; 

ODOT tried collecting and using multiple versions of the culvert condition assessment dataset 

and ultimately chose a smaller number of fields than was originally attempted. Staff noted the 

“delicate balance between collecting enough data to provide useful information and the time and 

resources necessary to collect, manage, and maintain the data.” Just five photographs were 
22 

standard in the final protocol. The management system the agency developed still had the ability 

to capture additional fields, but they were neither required nor regularly collected.

The Engineering and Asset Management Unit provided direct 

supervision and oversight of the day-to-day operations of culvert 

data collection and data management, in addition to its general 

responsibility for asset management of unstable slopes, material 

sources, walls, and stormwater features. A cross-disciplinary 

Statewide Culvert Asset Management (SCAM) group provided 

support and included staff from Maintenance, Asset Management, 

Engineering, Geometronics, GIS, and Transportation Data. The 

SCAM provided direction and coordination among stakeholders 

statewide as well as review of significant scope and budget 

modification requests. This leadership group made the difficult 

decision to collect a smaller amount of data in the 1R inventory as 

part of its effort to get to a sustainable level of information 

collection and management, especially as the agency continued to 

reduce staff. 

ODOT’s Asset Management staff cautioned that they experienced 

30-40 percent data deterioration (inaccuracy due to change in asset 

condition over time) over five years for traffic barriers. The 

agency experienced 20-30 percent data deterioration for other 

assets over similar periods of time, which sparked conclusions that 

more comprehensive, expensive inventories lose their value 

quickly. 

The SCAM reported to the Maintenance Leadership Team and 

compiled lessons learned. ODOT learned that crew members must 

have a minimum skill set, be motivated, and be dedicated to the 

effort for an extended period of time. After several attempts using 

staff with little training produced data that could not be loaded into 

the management system, ODOT concluded that appropriate 

training of field staff was essential. 

ODOT estimated the total number of culverts in the state based on 

the average number of culverts per mile (4.5 culverts) in the 

inventoried areas, multiplied by the total number of highway miles 

in Oregon: 8,045. Based on this, Oregon DOT expects the agency 

owns 35,000-36,000 culverts. ODOT has no plans for a full 

inventory because the agency lacks sustainable resources to 

perform regular inspections of culverts 12-72 inches in span and is 

“too busy chasing the ‘critical’ and ‘poor’ culverts.” As of 2013-

14, the Culvert Inventory Project had a dedicated team of 

inventory crews assigned to collect data statewide across 1,700 

Fig. 7: Field Examples of 

Culvert Conditions from 

Oregon DOT’s Culvert 

Assessment Guide
23 

priority miles. This project contributed to the state’s1R inventory on priority corridors and 

segments scheduled for transportation improvements. The process evaluated and rated culverts 

and six other assets as “Fair/Better, Needs Inspection, or Needs Urgent Attention.” ODOT called

this “triage-type information” a basic culvert assessment (BCA). ODOT has since determined 

the safety of the field crews working along the Interstate Highways was of higher priority and 

have discontinued the use of the BCA on these routes. The data set needed for culvert condition 

assessment (ACA) is now collected during the initial site visit, eliminating the second site visit 

required on culverts rated as “Needs Inspection” or “Needs Urgent Attention” using the BCA 

methodology. 

Thus far, ODOT’s culvert inventory indicates about one-third of the culverts are in critical (13

percent) or poor (20 percent) condition. Another one-third or more are in fair condition (36 

percent) and another one-third are in good condition (31 percent). After the BCA, ODOT 

evaluates which sites warrant additional investigation to complete the Advanced Condition 

Assessment and further data collection. 

ODOT developed a two-day training class on Culvert Inventory and Condition Assessment 

procedures and two days of training on GPS equipment and data post processing, following a 

week of safety training. Based on earlier pilots, ODOT had discovered that approximately three

person-hours of work were required to collect the basic level of information about each culvert. 

After one month’s training and practice, a two-person field crew was able to inventory 100-125 

culverts per month. The program estimated time needed for the culverts to be inventoried and 

trained 17-18 internal transfers and new hires, in addition to interested District Maintenance 

staff. Bridge inspectors rated larger culverts using NBIS methods and Pontis Bridge Software, 

and ODOT planned to train Bridge staff on the system for shorter culverts so they could help 

update the overall culvert system. ODOT also trained staff interested in collecting culvert 

information but who were not part of the inventory project over the priority routes. Training on 

the use of the Drainage Facility Management System is also under development. 

Database and Management Systems

Oregon DOT’s Drainage Facility Management System (DFMS) is an Oracle-based database with 

a Cold Fusion user interface. It is managed from ODOT’s central Technical Services/GeoEnvironmental Section/Engineering & Asset Management Unit. The DFMS allowed districts and 

regions to update data. Furthermore, it is integrated with ODOT’s agency-wide asset 

management system, TransInfo, an evolving system ODOT has used for almost 10 years. FileNet 

is used to store the project plans, and TransInfo captures pipe outfall and stormwater control 

facility information from project plans. 

In developing the data fields, ODOT looked at the data fields in its statewide databases and 

district spreadsheets as well as in FHWA’s CMS. ODOT reviewed its existing Hydraulics 

Inspection Form and the Oregon Fish & Wildlife fish passage culvert inventory. Staff laid out the 

data items for each source in adjacent spreadsheet columns to identify a complete set of unique 

data fields and overarching categories to evaluate the options. Photos and a history of condition 

assessments will be new features stored online. ODOT also decided to present different user 

interfaces based on user needs (e.g., maintenance vs. fish passage) to encourage regular updating 
24 

of information in the database. ODOT still lacks a process to record maintenance fixes and 

design fixes in the asset system, but this issue may be tackled in the future.

Prioritization and Risk Assessment

The information in the DFMS is used by Oregon’s Transportation Commission in funds 

allocation decisions and justifications. The DFMS is also used in financial reporting, project 

development and design by maintenance and by other staff. After Statewide Transportation 

Improvement Program (STIP) funding allocations are set, a committee of headquarters and 

region representatives evaluates the list of culverts in need of repair or replacement and selects 

individual culvert projects, since the STIP has placeholders for “Culvert Repairs.” 

ODOT says there is no overall management plan for culverts and that each transportation 

capacity project is required to scope culverts within project limits for facilities in need of repair 

or replacement due to structural conditions or fish passage needs. When the culvert inventory on 

priority routes is complete and available, ODOT staff plan to include more culvert work in the 

STIP as stand-alone projects or as additions to planned transportation improvements. ODOT did

not plan to add functionality to the DFMS to perform deterioration analysis, but the agency is in 

the process of identifying how it can roll up its ratings to identify what infrastructure is in 

“critical” or “poor” condition overall and which culverts should be addressed when. 

Another driving factor in culvert prioritization is the need to address and improve fish passage 

barriers. ODOT often looks for opportunities to create projects, especially where infrastructure 

would otherwise not be addressed for some time and ODOT could partner with other programs 

or agencies and leverage funds. Fish passage requirements can work against addressing culvert 

needs and leveraging funding. Due to permit and aquatic organism passage (AOP) requirements, 

the common wisdom at ODOT has been “don’t touch it unless it’s falling apart;” however, 

waiting until failures occur can entail other inefficiencies, such as cutting into new pavement, in 

addition to increasing risks to the traveling public. 

Outside of planned transportation/capacity and renewal projects, emergency failures drive 

maintenance action/improvements. ODOT estimates it has a backlog of culvert and storm drain 

works in the $750 million range. When inventory data are available, ODOT anticipates it will be 

able to tie engineering decision-making at the project scoping level to the program level, which 

will help optimize budgets as well as allocations among culvert and storm drain preservation, 

rehabilitation, and replacement projects. 

Planning & Funding

ODOT staff members have performed considerable cost estimation for ODOT leadership. After 

pilot inventories of culverts, ODOT estimated that it would cost $2.4 million to complete 

inventory and condition assessment of culverts just on the state’s priority highway routes. Staff 

also estimated the cost per culvert repair or replacement over the course of its service life at

about $126,000 per culvert (based on one-time culvert funding of $17.5 million to repair/replace 

140 culverts). Total service life needs for the entire culvert system came to a total of $4.4 billion 

for all the culverts across a 50-year design life. If the need for repairs occurred evenly, staff 

estimated that annual replacement and repair costs would come to $88 million per year. If 25
25 

percent of culverts were in need of repair or replacement in short order, then potential immediate 

need could exceed $1 billion, according to ODOT staff estimates. This estimate compares to 

current funding of $2.7 million per year for ODOT’s large culvert program and $4.1 million per 

year for fish passage improvements. 

ODOT’s Culvert Repairs Program identified a minimum of $45 million in immediate needs, of 

which $17 million were fixed and $27 million remained. The Engineering and Asset 

Management Unit administers the Large Culvert and “Fix-It” Culvert Programs’ funding 

allocations statewide to address these needs. Further, the state’s “Fix It” Program allocated an 

additional $6 million per year for culvert repair and replacement projects. Two-thirds of the 

dedicated funding for culvert projects is required to be used on designated priority routes; the 

remainder can be more flexibly allocated. ODOT estimated that keeping culverts at the current 

condition would require $45-$58 million per year. 

Oregon has 100-200 large culverts that need to be replaced, but the agency has been replacing 

just 1 or 2 large culverts every 3 to 4 years. A special STIP program is available to repair and 

replace 6-20-foot culverts inspected and assessed through the bridge program, but this fund has 

just $2-3 million per year, allowing just a few culverts to be replaced. Fish passage requirements 

limit how far the available funding could go, given that the larger culverts are stream crossings

and must meet fish passage requirements and be bigger, which can elevate replacement from ”inkind” – about $1 million – to a $5 million bridge project. 

ODOT highlighted the need for coordination across functional areas and assets in a systems 

approach to avoid competition between assets on political grounds or “which section or asset 

group publishes a risk-related report first.” ODOT noted the need to think about the whole 

system and what would be affected by a seismic or extreme weather event. 

ODOT has undertaken an assessment of climate change vulnerability and risk and developed an 

Adaptation Report, using a 50-year planning horizon and has updated the rainfall maps for the 

state for the second half of the century. ODOT had not made any adjustments to plans, programs, 

or standards with climate change or increasing precipitation levels or extreme weather events in 

mind. The agency is not contemplating doing this in the future either, mainly because “fish 

passage design criteria have required more additional capacity than would be required due to 

climate change.” 

ODOT will take a closer look at hazard sites, especially those that are detour routes or where the 

agency can design for it or provide some additional adaptation flexibility. Average daily traffic is 

also a consideration, and the level of risk to the travelling public is of primary concern. ODOT 

will look at 5 to 10 sites for its most recent climate change adaptation project. The agency’s 

Maintenance Dispatch System is the main agency repository recording extreme events and asset 

condition and performance during and after those events. In January 2012, ODOT used the 

system to compile specific maintenance problems seen in the storms that month. ODOT tracked

problem drainage and rockfall slide areas and other issues and found that state rockfall databases 

were a good model for risk-based asset tracking; however, ODOT noted that tracking and 

recording these issues was not consistent among the districts. 
26 

Summary

Oregon DOT is notable for its longstanding efforts related to culvert data collection, its estimates 

of the costs and implications of data collection, and the estimates of culvert repair and 

replacement needs the state was able to generate for management. ODOT performed a series of 

pilots and a deep inquiry by Asset Management staff before deciding to collect a reduced set of 

“triage” data on culverts on priority routes due to lack of funding and declining staff. Oregon has 

also invested in extensive staff training. In Oregon, fish passage design requirements have 

required more additional capacity than changing precipitation would require, so the agency is 

focusing on hazard sites and detour routes. 

Best Practices

• Formal analyses of three levels of potential culvert inventory. Benefit and risk analyses of 

the speed of inventorying culverts. 

• Focus of culvert inventory on routes of greatest freight, maintenance, and technical 

concern. 

• Cross-disciplinary SCAM group, including staff from Maintenance, Asset Management, 

Engineering, Geometronics, GIS, and Transportation Data. 

• Dedicated teams of culvert locators and inspectors supported by Maintenance staff.

• DFMS as a tool used in funding decisions. 

• Use of web-based GIS geospatial database accessible via laptops in the field.

• Extensive training provided. 

• “Whole-system” thinking. 

• Assessing climate change vulnerability and risk. 
27 

VERMONT AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION CULVERT MANAGEMENT

Culvert management at the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) has had multiple drivers 

and starting points. The state initially started mapping outfalls in urban areas to comply with the 

agency’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Later, VTrans staff 

thought they might be able to leverage survey grade mapping of culvert inlets and outlets as part 

of a major fiber optic installation project across the state. VTrans also had three finalized 

construction projects where sinkholes developed, which required million-dollar replacements of 

4-foot pipes soon after construction. These issues drew considerable public attention. 

VTrans is unusual among state DOTs in that Vermont has asset management and performance 

measures written into statute. VTrans assisted the General Assembly, the Joint Fiscal Office, and 

the Legislative Council in developing the wording of the legislation and the ultimate statute, 

which require VTrans to: 

• Develop an asset management plan and a systematic goal and performance-driven 

management and decision-making process for operating, maintaining, and upgrading 

transportation assets cost effectively. 

• Include deterioration rates for infrastructure assets and determine the annual funds 

necessary to fund infrastructure maintenance at the recommended performance level, 

over the long term. 

In 2005 and 2006, the Vermont State Legislature required a quantifiable transportation project 

prioritization method that assigned a numeric score to projects listed in the annual budget. Later, 

the federal MAP-21 legislation encouraged management and investment prioritization of assets 

beyond pavement and bridges. VTrans has responded proactively by inventorying overhead 

signs, retaining walls, and pedestrian trail bridges in addition to culverts. VTrans extended its

culvert mapping after Hurricane Irene and Superstorm Sandy drew attention to drainage 

infrastructure and flood resilience. 

As part of the agency’s culvert mapping efforts, VTrans extrapolated the average number of 

culverts and drop inlet structures per mile on state maintained highways. VTrans estimates there 

are approximately 60,000 culverts and 40,000 drop inlets on the state system. While VTrans has 

inventoried interstates and NHS highways, the agency estimates that just 15 percent of the whole 

culvert system has been located and assessed. 

Like many DOTs, VTrans has long been inventorying larger culverts as part of its bridge system 

and the NBIS; VTrans had been inventorying and tracking culverts and storm drains 6-20 feet in 

span for more than two decades. More recently, VTrans divided responsibility for culverts 

between the Structures (and Bridge) Section and the Asset Management Section; the latter

oversees data collection for culverts spanning less than 6 feet. 

Inventory and Inspection

Every five years, the VTrans Structures Section inspects all bridges and culverts 6-20 feet in 

length, which the agency calls “short structures.” VTrans has 1,265 culverts in this larger size 
28 

range, 1,092 of which are buried. Small culverts are handled by Asset Management. VTrans 

Operations leads the locating effort for the smaller culverts. 

VTrans Operations, supported by temporary staff, started locating small culverts less than six 

feet in span in 2002. This effort is ongoing; VTrans staff stressed that the agency was still in the 

process of conducting its first-round baseline inventory and assessment and that the number of 

culverts the state had was unknown. VTrans estimated the state could have as many as 80,000 

culverts less than 72 inches in diameter. Of the latter, the Highway Safety and Design, Asset 

Management Unit had inventoried 14,468 small culverts and 10,468 drop inlet structures across 

735 miles of highway investigated as of early 2013. 

VTrans’ inventory and inspection forces use different rating systems for small and large culverts. 

The Structures Section does not have a documented culvert management process for rating 

bridge-size (6-20foot) culverts or short structures beyond what the agency already used with the 

NBIS; VTrans utilizes a 0-9 NBIS rating system for culverts greater than 6 feet in diameter. For 

smaller culverts, VTrans developed and uses a 5-level (excellent, good, fair, poor, critical) rating 

system. VTrans rates the major components – inlet, outlet, and barrel – of each culvert. 

Staff and temporary workers assign condition ratings in accordance with descriptions found in 

the Statewide Small Culvert Inventory (SSCI) field manual. VTrans inspects culverts visually, in 

combination with a series of structural flags for culverts using “poor” or “critical” descriptors to 

indicate possible structural or maintenance issues. Variables associated with roadway surface 

shoulder stability and erosion help identify culvert problems when structural deficiencies are not 

apparent during the visual inspection process. Sometimes the agency uses smoke to determine if 

a culvert is open. 

Vermont has numerous locations where the drainage structures (the inlet, outlet, or both) are 

buried. Field crews use the record plan dimensions and metal detectors to attempt to locate pipe 

ends and drop inlets, but in some locations this has proven unsuccessful. Buried drop inlets and 

pipes have been found as deep as 3 feet under sediment. When new locations are discovered, 

culverts are digitized in the office at a scale of 1:2,000 from orthophotography. Dimensions from 

record plans are included if available. VTrans has mined some data from other efforts, including 

route survey data from design projects, the pilot program for the SSCI, and the stormwater 

mapping project in the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) area. This mix of sources 

allows users access to the best available data and identify sources in the database. For culverts 

that cannot be reached, VTrans relies heavily on the conditions of culverts in the vicinity, in 

addition to surface indications of possible problem areas. 

Attributes collected in the culvert condition assessment include: 

• Inlet treatment condition

• Outlet treatment condition

• Barrel condition 

• Pipe joint section separation 
29 

• Projecting culvert ends

• Stone pad 

• Sediment

• Erosion 

• Road surface conditions 

• Shoulder sink holes 

• Piping 

Of all culvert barrels that were able to be assessed for condition, 93 percent were recorded as being in 

fair or better condition. The majority of VTrans culverts were made of steel (see Figure 4). 

Reinforced Concrete Pipe culverts were assessed to be in better condition than Corrugated Metal 

Pipe; 13 percent more concrete culverts were in the good condition rating (Vermont 2010 Condition 

report, p. 21). 

Figure 8: VTrans Culvert Condition by Material 

(VTrans 2010 Condition Report, p. 21)
30 

The culvert location effort has increased maintenance attention to them, according to VTrans. 

Once culverts were flagged for action by headquarters Asset Management, district maintenance 

forces were quick to replace them. For large culverts, VTrans’ Bridge staff and the Structures 

Section flagged those 6-20 feet in span that needed to be addressed and have attempted to 

program needs into the budget. 

In the past, VTrans Operations and Asset Management has used a new group of staff, including 

interns, to collect data every season. VTrans conducted a week-long in-house training course, 

followed by one to two weeks of field training to calibrate conditions and understand what is 

acceptable for sediment accumulation. As VTrans staff noted, “Some of this is describable in a 

manual, but the condition rating of a 2-foot culvert from the end is a challenge in and of itself. 

VTrans is more concerned about getting a general culvert condition over a segment of roadway.” 

VTrans would like to move toward a consistent set of in-house inspectors for small culverts, 

similar to Structures inspection staff, who can build on their experience. 

Databases and Management Systems

All located culverts have latitude and longitude information, and having a GIS inventory has 

facilitated the dissemination of culvert information through various means of reporting and 

mapping and made the information available to maintenance staff, designers, and other agencies. 

VTrans’ databases store culvert and storm drain information, but it does not store hydraulic 

design or watershed information, plans, or the repair or replacement strategies the agency has 

devised for culverts when needed. 

VTrans stores large culvert/small structure information in an Access database managed by the 

Structures Section. For the smaller culverts, VTrans stores data in a spatial Structured Query 

Language (SQL) database, which VTrans is transferring into the agency’s Maintenance Activity 

Tracking System (MATS). SQL is a special-purpose programming language designed for managing 

data held in a relational database management system. The maintenance activity tracking system to 

which VTrans is transitioning is not spatial, but the system database does contain coordinate values 

for the assets. VTrans uses a series of routines to make the MATS data available through GIS and 

warehouse reporting tables. VTrans anticipates that incorporating small culvert data into the 

agency’s Deighton pavement management system will improve analysis capabilities, ,aid investment 

decision-making and help maximize resources. 

In addition to integrating asset management into the state’s MATS, the MATS/Asset Management 

Section is developing two ancillary tools for Operations to facilitate GIS linkages: 

• Web mapping site – A site accessible through an internet browser containing GIS base 

mapping data and field inventory culvert data as well as available historic district data.

• Web reports to aid in the selection of culvert data from the GIS database. The first 

report allows users to select culverts from a specific district, town, route, and mile marker

and returns a basic report table of information on the culverts in that segment. The second 

report is an inspection report for an individual culvert that shows the full inspection 

information from the most current inspection. 

As the integration moves forward, the process will direct the data flow of the culvert work or 

inspections of either Maintenance/Asset Management or Structures Section and will feed the 

dataset to update the master data. Secondary benefits have already been realized:
31 

• Existing MS4 data/inventory of stormwater features within MS4 areas were absorbed and 

incorporated into the Statewide Small Culvert Inventory to be properly maintained and 

updated as needed. The Stormwater Compliance Management Program can then access 

the data.

• Upcoming MS4 areas were incorporated into the Statewide Small Culvert Inventory as 

well. In anticipation of the Rutland area being designated in the near future as an MS4 

area, the standard Small Structure Culvert Inventory collection procedure was appended 

with the additional needs of the MS4 program. This effort saved the expense of double 

collection and will ensure agency data integration into the future.

• VTrans has coordinated with paving projects to leverage resources and minimize risks. 

With the number of issues that came about in recent years on completed pavement 

projects, the paving section requested information regarding cross culverts. This data was

incorporated into plans for several interstate projects and increased what the agency could 

accomplish with its dollars. 

The complexity of the MATS database proved to be more challenging than originally expected, 

but the group made some fundamental advances that allow for the integration of culverts and 

pave the way for additional asset integration and mapping of MATS information in the future. 

VTrans maintenance activities (and MATS codes) lacked specificity to break down the costs of 

culvert and storm drain works activities. Instead, VTrans tracked staff hours and 

accomplishments but not the type of maintenance completed. Hours were tracked, but activities 

were broad, and drainage work could refer to culvert replacement or cleaning ditches. With the 

small culvert/MATS integration, the agency anticipated the data documentation would have 

greater detail.

To better enable municipalities to track and maintain their culverts and to facilitate a more 

comprehensive view, VTrans created the Vermont Online Bridge and Structure Inventory Tool 

(VOBSIT), which can be used by both VTrans and municipalities to manage their systems and 

look at interrelationships. VTrans is updating VOBSIT to make it more user friendly for 

municipalities, which vary widely in terms of their technical abilities and asset management.

Prioritization and Risk Assessment

When asked about prioritization and risk assessment, VTrans staff emphasized they were at the 

inventory stage and had not gotten to the point where their system provided decision support for 

repair options or funding allocation. “This is all a definite mind shift for both design and 

maintenance, and (culvert management) is yet another area where VTrans is asking them to track 

new data.” VTrans staff stressed they were really just developing the inventory for smaller 

culverts and maintaining what they had for NBIS for the larger culverts to provide more 

information for the agency to consider culvert conditions and options anecdotally and to 

prioritize culvert repair and maintenance needs. Meanwhile, the inventories are building the 

foundation to monitor culvert deterioration over time. 

Maintenance staff members participate in prioritization and risk minimization for small culverts. 

Without a full inventory and management system for small culverts, rehabilitation and 
32 

replacement occur as critical needs arise. The small culvert inventory has yielded a relatively 

small number of “critical” pipes that are easily replaced by the districts. In undertaking culvert 

projects, VTrans tries to take advantage of equipment and staff mobilization. Thus, the culvert 

replacement process can be heavily based on the paving program, with the availability of funds 

dictating the replacements of smaller culverts. Districts often identify culverts to be replaced 

when reviewing their paving projects, whether culverts were last replaced in 1960 or just 25 

years ago. 

For larger culverts, prioritization of a culvert replacement is driven by the level of deterioration 

seen with eroded inverts or flooding due to beaver dam building. The VTrans Structures Section

manager said the agency has not been doing a lot of maintenance on the culvert system. Rather, 

the Structures Section is trying to use different techniques, such as reinforced inverts and linings 

to promote life extension. Influences, such as fish passage or hydraulics, have pushed VTrans to 

replace some culverts. Now, VTrans Structures Section managers say the agency is “sizing 

culverts so they will not get wiped out in the next flood. Washouts are opportunities to revisit the 

design process and find out: If we increase it by a certain amount, can we reduce risk and how 

much more life will that get the agency statistically?”

VTrans wants to get to the point of prioritizing the short structures (large culverts) based on risk. 

The Structures section would like to extract NBIS data to assess condition and prioritize for their 

own planning as well as use such information to obtain public input and Regional Planning 

Commissions’ priorities. VTrans notes that about 75 percent of culverts in Vermont are owned 

by municipalities, and municipal culverts upstream and downstream can exacerbate aquatic 

organism passage and flood resilience for VTrans and other roads from a fluvial standpoint. 

Many culverts with potential AOP issues have not received attention because the culverts and/or 

the road above were in fine condition. When VTrans has replaced or re-sized culverts, the size 

has often been driven by AOP and the bankfull-width requirement. VTrans Structures staff notes 

that 8-foot depth of fill is a threshold with regard to cost and risk; they look at how much fill the 

structure has on it and how much removal or replacement would impact traffic. Municipalities 

have limited funds and staff to address culvert 

needs, risks, and new design standards too. 

VTrans’ new drainage manual will have a riskbased approach and bankfull-width standard 

instead of defined Q50 year standards. The former

manual did not include sediment continuity or 

AOP. VTrans is in the process of assessing 

vulnerability via GIS analysis, developing a 

method to determine risk, and then identifying a 

suite of mitigation options linked to that risk. Pilot 

projects are testing the method. Since new 

planning for hydrology and road alignment is 

often not possible in emergency situations, VTrans 

is proactively identifying possible critical areas

and solutions for culverts. This process requires the availability of most recent and accurate data 

to conduct the hydraulic analysis. 

Figure 9: Culvert washed out by Hurricane 

Irene. (VTrans photo).
33 

Planning and Funding

VTrans’ sections work together to plan, minimize risk, and identify and respond to culvert needs 

identified through inventory, assessment, and consultative prioritization processes. If culverts are 

found to need minor maintenance Structures and Asset Management notify Operations, which

takes that under advisement and makes its own decisions, including planning and funding. 

VTrans Structures Section noted that VTrans may put more money toward culverts if the agency 

identifies the need to do so. 

VTrans’ funding for culvert and storm drain preservation, maintenance, rehabilitation, and 

replacement varies from year to year depending on needs. Large culverts are financially identical 

to a bridge and subject to fund withdrawal or reprioritization if an emergency occurs elsewhere. 

No dedicated reserve of money exists for large culverts, and fluvial and AOP demands mean that 

VTrans’ culverts tend to be bigger and more expensive when replaced. Small culvert 

improvements are funded under many categories as incidental expenses. Those interviewed for 

this study raised allocation of maintenance funds as an issue for further consideration. 

VTrans considers life cycle cost but not systematically or as the primary or only consideration. 

Mobilization of the contractor is a significant cost. Sometimes VTrans invests in a longer lasting, 

more expensive structure. Small culverts are easier to include in existing transportation 

improvement projects than replacements of large culverts. 

In programming funds for longer, larger structures, 

such as bridges, VTrans uses a prioritization system 

that staff members have been considering modifying 

for use with large culverts. For existing “long” 

structure or bridge projects, Rehabilitation and 

Replacement received the most points to condition (30 

percent), followed by 10-15 percent each for 

Remaining Service Life, Load Capacity and Use, 

Waterway Adequacy and Scour Susceptibility, 

Regional Input and Priority, and Asset Benefit Cost 

Factor. Rankings change from year to year as projects

are completed, conditions change, or regional planning 

commissions’ priorities change, but the process has 

enabled the agency to clear a backlog of projects for 

long structures in a defined, documented, and efficient manner. However, the preventive 

maintenance approach VTrans started for bridges six years ago did not extend to culverts. 

Planning for culverts occurs within the long and short structure programs of the Structures 

Section. If culvert improvements are part of the Structures or Pavement programs, culvert 

improvements are programmed as a line item in the STIP, but most of these improvements are 

for large, major culverts. VTrans anticipates that the culvert inventory and prioritization efforts 

may ultimately lead to a dedicated funding source in the STIP. Culverts compete against other 

needs across the state at the same time the agency considers what is needed to produce greater 

resilience in the face of storms. 

Figure 10: Hydraulically, geomorphically, 

and ecologically compatible structure that 

withstood Hurricane Irene and other flood 

events. (Readsboro VT 8 Bridge, VTrans 

photo).
34 

Agency director, Rich Tetrault, noted that Hurricane Irene washed out more than 2,000 roadway 

segments, undermined more than 1,000 culverts, and damaged more than 300 bridges on the 

combined town and state network. He stressed, “Understanding that our climate is changing and 

that the frequency and intensity of storm activity will likely be greater during the next 100 years 

than it was during the last 100, it is prudent that as we rebuild, we also adapt.” VTrans has 

remained focused on vulnerability with river systems in Vermont and establishing methods for 

deterring risk to infrastructure from flood inundation and erosion in order to better set agency 

budget priorities. VTrans is also training staff in incident command center methods. 

To address flood resilience needs, VTrans identified sources of data and information the agency 

needs to understand environmental conditions for transportation infrastructure that are vulnerable 

to climate change effects. VTrans Operations also began mapping post-storm expenditures in 

2011. VTrans has worked with the National Weather Service to analyze more recent 

hydrological data to determine if trends in the real data could be identified. In addition, the 

agency has also worked with a climatologist to develop a downscaled climate model. 

Transportation agencies are concerned with runoff, not precipitation; VTrans believes that the 

estimated precipitation is not a good proxy for climate change in Vermont. The U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) was also analyzing the data to discern trends. USGS has documented high water 

marks that might correlate with high water marks in its models. 

VTrans has not recorded extreme events and asset condition and performance during and after 

extreme events, but VTrans monitors bridge scour and emergency response. The post-Irene 

check of structures was more of an emergency response than a data collection enterprise; 

nevertheless, discussed and documented information could be part of future records on road 

sections and culverts. VTrans observed that upgraded bridges and culverts did very well in major 

storms. Some bridge failures occurred due to scour, but there were no failures of the new culverts 

built to 1.2 bankfull-width standards. 

VTrans is working to identify vulnerabilities with the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and 

the Agency of Community Affairs; this helps VTrans better manage its facilities and enables 

VTrans to better assist municipalities. VTrans is convinced that “the solution is for the rivers to 

be able to access their floodplains and thus avoid conditions that threaten structures or may be 

causing erosion problems upstream or downstream of VTrans’ facilities. Being cognizant of river 

dynamics in planning, design, and maintenance activities, and building and designing structures 

that are adequately sized to address flood hazards and accommodate river flow and movement” 

also produces co-benefits. Inundation, AOP, and wildlife passage could all benefit from these 

shifts, according to VTrans staff, who also said the interagency communication, work, and 

relationship building of the last 10 years were reaching fruition. Hydro-geomorphological needs 

are more holistically considered in project planning and design. High-level leadership from both 

VTrans and the state natural resources agency are fully committed to this new approach to 

floodplain management and flood resilience. 

The effect of river stability on road stability has been apparent on a corridor level. Agency staff 

said, “VTrans has a fever in the agency to work better in rivers, understand dynamics, and 

respect river systems in emergencies and in maintenance. It has been quite surprising for it to 

move from (that being) a regulatory issue to it being how VTrans is doing business. The districts 

have experienced the advice of the river engineers and have followed it and have seen in flood 
35 

conditions that (these new approaches) protected the roadway. As VTrans has stopped creating 

those (fluvial) problems, the agency has seen improvements in resilience and longevity of 

infrastructure.” 

Summary

VTrans’ system of small culverts is in relatively good shape from those inventoried on the 

interstate and NHS, though the backlog of large culvert repairs is increasing. The agency has 

been improving flood resilience through a revised hydraulic design manual that requires a 1.2 

bankfull-width standard and a design strategy that accommodates more of the floodplain in 

bridge and culvert openings. 

VTrans is coordinating with Maine DOT and New Hampshire DOT on integrating asset 

management into its maintenance tracking. As VTrans integrates the small culvert inventory with 

the agency’s MATS, it will allow connection between maintenance activities and culvert 

conditions over time and facilitate incorporation of culvert replacements into transportation 

improvement and pavement preservation projects. Further integration with the agency’s 

Deighton Pavement and Bridge Management systems will extend analytical capabilities, help 

find efficiencies, and leverage other transportation improvements. 

Best Practices

• Asset management and performance measures written into statute, requiring a 

quantifiable project prioritization method assigning a numeric score to projects listed in 

the annual budget.

• Integration of culverts into the state’s maintenance management system, allowing 

connection between maintenance activities and culvert conditions over time. 

• Implementation of web mapping and web report sites covering culverts. 

• Creation of the Vermont Online Bridge and Structure Inventory Tool (VOBSIT), which 

can be used by both VTrans and municipalities to manage their systems and look at 

interrelationships. 

• Emphasis on river dynamics and floodplain accommodation in culvert, bridge, and road 

alignment upgrade strategies.

• Revised hydraulic design manual that requires a 1.2 bankfull-width standard. 

• Analysis of increasing storm frequencies and flood vulnerabilities. 

• Mapping of post-storm expenditures.
36 

CONCLUSION

Good culvert management systems enable repair and rehabilitation instead of replacement. Such 

systems also help transportation agencies avoid emergencies and fatalities. This report illustrates 

how four transportation agencies were surveying and managing culverts in order to take costeffective action to preserve these drainage assets. Many transportation agencies are just 

beginning to inventory and assess the condition of the culverts they manage, but Ohio DOT and 

LA County have now completed culvert inventories. Location of culverts has led to more 

proactive maintenance and increased agency ability to identify, project, and address culvert 

needs and to extend lifespans and reduce failures. 

Inventory and Inspection Best Practices

The four agencies interviewed were moving to in-field electronic data collection with mobile 

electronic devices; for example, Oregon DOT staff used a web-based GIS geospatial database 

accessible via laptops in the field in their culvert condition assessments. Agencies also used 

bridge inspection style 0-9 culvert ratings, 4- or 5-level culvert condition assessment 

methodologies, and a 3-level triage system that worked well. 

In terms of staffing, DOTs found success with dedicated teams of culvert locators and inspectors. 

Contractor assistance helped districts complete culvert inspections in Ohio. VTrans was shifting 

from temporary inspectors to training the state’s regular bridge inspection staff to add inspection 

of smaller culverts to their duties and to accumulate the benefit of staff experience. Training new 

inspectors on the culvert condition assessment methodologies tended to take agencies one to two 

days, plus on-the-job training. Use of technology and asset management systems required further 

training, and when safety courses were added, still more training time was necessary. 

Oregon DOT conducted extensive pilots and cost estimating ahead of its culvert inventory. 

Oregon DOT found that three staff hours were needed to collect the basic level of information 

about each culvert. In the pilot inventories, Oregon DOT also found that about a third of culverts 

were in “critical” or “poor” condition and two-thirds were in “fair” or “good” condition. This 

triage enabled Oregon DOT to evaluate which sites warranted additional investigation and an 

Advanced Condition Assessment. Oregon DOT tried to collect and use multiple versions of the 

culvert condition assessment dataset and ultimately chose a smaller number of fields than was 

originally attempted, noting the resources necessary to collect, manage, and maintain data over 

time. 

Both Oregon and Vermont were in the process of completing their first inventories of culverts 

and locations and associated condition assessments. In one of the most notable best practices 

found in this study, Ohio DOT successfully incentivized districts to complete culvert inventories 

by changing how culvert improvement funds were distributed. Ohio created a culvert program of 

funds to be distributed by the number of culverts managed and their needs. Starting in 2014, 

completed inventories will be necessary for each district to access maintenance and capital funds 

for culverts. 
37 

LA County’s culvert inspection and management program was unique among those interviewed 

in that the Public Works Maintenance forces inspected, cleaned, and performed minor repairs on 

culverts in one trip to each culvert site every year. Maintenance forces then photo-documented

the results. The county was starting to videotape 10 percent of the county’s culvert system every 

year. 

Databases and Management System Best Practices 

All the state DOTs interviewed had greatly enhanced their data for culvert investment decisionmaking and maintenance. Data management systems were evolving to support maintenance 

decision-making and programming of capital projects. 

Particularly noteworthy practices emerged in Ohio and LA County. Ohio developed its own 

culvert management system and spreadsheet for districts to use in conjunction with the state’s 

project management and GIS systems. Such databases allow viewing of culvert needs in relation 

to scheduled paving projects and help leverage resources. Ohio DOT was developing 

deterioration models for culverts and examining how to link data from the Structure 

Management System to maintenance. 

In LA County, culvert and maintenance management were integrated in a unified asset 

management system, Maximo. The County was mapping all culverts and drains in GIS and

integrating this information into a multi-agency GIS-based storm drain network map. LA

County’s financial management system tracks expenditures on culvert management, which in 

turn links with the maintenance management system and its routine updates of labor and material 

costs. LA County’s MMS was noteworthy in the extent to which it could track maintenance 

activities, store facility inventory information, analyze staffing needs, and provide cost analysis. 

The agency was on the verge of capturing costs for specific replacement projects or culvert 

linings for better linkage of life cycle costs, action benefits and cost-effectiveness, and system 

value in the future. 

Most of the state DOTs interviewed were still developing processes to record maintenance and 

design “fixes” in the culvert asset management databases they had under way. Ohio DOT and 

LA County’s systems enabled the agencies to move toward estimating cost effectiveness and the 

benefits of preventative action. VTrans was integrating a homegrown maintenance activity 

tracking system with a new asset management system for smaller culverts, which will ultimately 

be integrated into the agency’s Deighton Pavement and Bridge Management system for crossasset management. 

Risk and Prioritization Best Practices

The best risk management and preservation maintenance activity was field inspection. The 

transportation agencies interviewed found that routine field inspection caught a majority of 

culvert problems before they became emergencies. Knowledge of culvert locations translated to 

better culvert maintenance; once maintenance forces were aware of culvert locations or risky 

conditions, they checked and addressed threats earlier, which prolonged service life and 

prevented culvert failures.
38 

The agencies interviewed tended to use Excel, their maintenance management or activity 

tracking systems, any other asset management systems, and Pontis Bridge Software to help 

prioritize culvert remediation actions that should be taken next to minimize risk or maximize 

future protection and control costs. As road construction projects were programmed or 

developed, planning and design staff members solicited input from maintenance districts 

regarding which culverts needed to be repaired or replaced and could be incorporated into road 

and bridge improvement projects. The cost of a culvert replacement/ improvement project and its 

resultant reduced maintenance cost were conceptually compared with minor repair and ongoing 

additional maintenance costs. Agencies assessed risk and community benefit, again at the 

conceptual level; detailed analyses of actual costs other than the construction costs were not 

prepared. A next step and noteworthy practice: LA County DPW is extending the risk 

assessment to the network level; the county’s combined multi-agency, GIS-based storm drain 

network map will help it and other agencies identify weak links in the network, whether inside or 

outside of the systems each agency manages. 

Oregon DOT was looking at hazards, and both Oregon DOT and VTrans were looking at detour 

routes in their proactive culvert assessment and prioritization. Counties and states managing 

roads in mountainous areas (LA County, Oregon, and Vermont) often placed a higher priority on 

those culverts located on routes with no alternative route if the culvert failed and the road 

became impassible. 

The areas of the United States facing the most intense rainstorms and flooding were represented 

only by Vermont in this set of case studies. DOTs were aware of climate change and taking steps 

to prepare for increasing storm intensities where pertinent. Oregon DOT conducted an 

assessment of climate change vulnerability and risk and developed an Adaptation Report using a 

50-year planning horizon and rainfall maps that were updated for the state for the second half of 

the century. Both Ohio and Vermont have also coordinated with the state climatologist to use the 

most updated precipitation maps and trends. 

DOTs in Vermont, Oregon, and California noted that upsizing requirements for aquatic organism 

or fish passage usually surpassed other hydrologic needs. DOTs anticipated that as long as they 

continuously updated the rainfall data in hydraulic design, they would be covered. Upsizing for 

fish passage notably increased flood resilience of culverts in Vermont and Oregon. There, and in 

other northern and coastal states, the need to address and improve fish passage barriers could be 

a driving factor in prioritization of culverts for remediation. Since fish passage requirements can 

increase the size of the barrel of the culvert that needs to be replaced, the available budget may 

be taken up by fewer, larger projects. For those upsizing projects that were implemented in 

Vermont, fish passage design criteria added capacity that contributed resilience in the flood 

flows of Superstorm Sandy and Hurricane Irene. VTrans was going to a risk-based approach to 

culvert installation and replacement along with a 1.2 bankfull-width standard instead of defined 

Q50 standards. 

Planning and Funding Best Practices

Enhanced culvert asset management data were helping DOTs develop project prioritization and 

funding justifications. The goal was to leverage paving projects and also avoid cutting into new 

pavement to replace a culvert that failed or was about to fail. 
39 

Some states allocated special pools of funding for culvert repair and replacement projects, either 

as one-time or recurring allocations (Oregon DOT’s “Fix It” Program) or by combining the funds 

formerly used for that purpose under all programs (Ohio). Oregon DOT also made estimates of 

the costs per culvert for repair or replacement over a given culvert’s service life, along with total 

service life needs over the entire system across a 50-year design life and other scenarios. 

LA County had the longest running culvert asset maintenance record of the transportation 

agencies interviewed and could break down how funds were spent under the proactive system. 

The county’s annual budget for culvert and storm drain maintenance spent 65 percent on 

preservation (inspection and cleaning), 15 percent on maintenance (repair), 10 percent on 

rehabilitation (lining and reconstruction), and 10 percent on complete removal and replacement 

of the existing culvert or drain. LA County found that although annual drain cleaning and 

inspection were resource intensive, the benefit gained from that effort was well worth it; the 

county was able to minimize the number of drain failures and road washouts with this pre-storm 

season annual practice. 

Due in part to consistent annual maintenance, LA County did not have a repair backlog on its 

smaller culverts. If a deficiency was discovered during the course of annual culvert inspection 

and a maintenance crew could not make a minor repair to address the issue, a culvert lining or 

replacement project was proposed. Those typically were completed within a year. About 30 

percent of bridge culverts have some remedial work recommended yearly in LA County. 

While DOTs said they did not yet have the data to do life cycle cost analysis for culverts, Ohio 

DOT was getting close to being able to estimate the costs and benefits of a culvert management 

system, basing costs on hours spent inspecting. In Vermont and Oregon, the generalized 

information on conditions that the state was collecting helped prioritize both culvert repair and 

maintenance needs while building the foundation to monitor culvert deterioration over time. 

Through the development of effective hydraulic control structure databases, management 

systems, and policies, DOTs can develop operational protocols and establish operating budgets 

that address risks associated with hydraulic control structure failures. This approach reduces risk 

to transportation infrastructure as well as potential risk to lives and property should culverts or 

other structures fail. The stories in this set of case studies illustrate a path for other DOTs and 

transportation agencies to reduce risk, improve public safety, and manage assets for better 

linkage of life cycle costs and the benefits of preventive action. The state DOTs interviewed

were continuing to improve their procedures, inspection and training strategies, and databases. 

Generally, the culvert management systems they developed were available for other public 

agencies to use and adapt. 
40 

INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS

FHWA Oversight Team

Stephen Gaj, Team Leader, Asset Management Team 

Brian Beucler, Senior Hydraulics Engineer 

Eric Brown, Ph.D., Hydraulic Engineer 

Sajid Aftab, PMP, Major Projects Engineer, Office of Innovative Program Delivery (OIPD) 

Robert Hyman, AICP, Specialist, Sustainable Transport and Climate Change Team 

Rebecca Lupes, Specialist, Office of Natural Environment 

Ohio Department of Transportation & Ohio FHWA Division

Jeffrey E. Syar P.E., Administrator, Office of Hydraulic Engineering

Kyle Brandon Ohio DOT Office of Hydraulic Engineering, Culvert Management 

Program

Matt Shamis Ohio FHWA Division

Frank Jalinoos Ohio FHWA Division

Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTRANS) and FHWA Vermont Division

Name Title

Kevin Viani Technician Highway Safety and Design, VTrans (culverts < 6 feet 

diameter)

Pam Thurber Bridge Management and Inspection Engineer, VTrans (culverts > 

6 feet diameter) 

Kenneth (Rob) 

Sikora

FHWA Division Environmental Program Manager

Nick Wark Hydraulics Engineer

John Narowski Environmental Chief

Gina Campoli Environmental Policy Manager (Climate Change Lead)

Chris Jolly FHWA Division Planning and Programming Engineer

Nelson Hoffman FHWA Division Program and Performance Management Team 

Leader

Larry Dwyer FHWA Division Assistant Division Administrator

Tod Kimball FHWA Division Bridge Program Manager
41 

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Caltrans, and FHWA California 

Division

Name Title

Patrick DeChellis LA County Public Works Department, Deputy Director

Lani Alfonso LA County Senior Civil Engineer, Culvert Program Manager, Road 

Maintenance Division, LA County Department of Public Works

Parviz Lashai Chief, Office of Maintenance Stormwater & Environmental Compliance

Manuel Morales Statewide Culvert Inspection Coordinator

Garth Hopkins Chief, Office of Regional and Interagency Planning

Steve Healow Project Development Engineer-FHWA

Greg Kolle Senior Structures Engineer-FHWA

Joseph Vaughn Environmental Specialist

David Sosa District 7 District Local Assistance Engineer

Pete Spaulding Program Manager, Office of Strategic Planning & Performance 

Management

Denix D Anbiah Division of Landscape Architecture

Rene T Garcia Division of Maintenance

Glenn S DeCou Hydraulics Engineer

David Tedrick Local Programs Team Leader (South)

Jacob Waclaw Senior Transportation Engineer (South)

Coco Briseno Acting Division Chief, Division of Research, Innovation and System 

Information

Steve Guenther Office of Strategic Management

Chris Long Infrastructure Team Leader-FHWA

La Nae Van Valen Office of Regional and Interagency Planning